Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Gordon Walsh is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This page relies on one source for the entirity of the information. At first, I misread and misunderstood the situation, not noticing that the same source has been referenced once in every paragraph, and so added a BLP under-referenced tag and an original research tag. Having had the situation (rather curtly) further explained to me by the creator of the page, I accepted I made a mistake, and then added the one source tag (having had the other tags removed by the page creator). This has since been removed for no apparent reason, despite the fact it is patent the page only has one source! So as to avoid an edit war, I have requested a WP:3O here. | Naypta✉opened his mouth at06:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a short stub that is cited to a reliable, comprehensive source. The only reason I would bother adding a second source, short of doing a big expansion that I am not feeling like doing, would be to prevent its vandalism with pointless tags. That's all this kind of tagging is: vandalism. It does absolutely nothing for the article, or any equivalent articles you tag, but you can and you get some kind of power vibe out of it so you're gonna. And that's just sad. Go help the project and do some work. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not discussing this with you at this point, as it seems to have turned into petty insults like "that's just sad" and "do some work". I have done what I have done in good faith, and shall wait for a third opinion. I suggest you do the same. | Naypta✉opened his mouth at06:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source. The article is 0% improved by this, but at least it stops you vandalising the article any further. I am sure you must feel big and tough for successfully haranguing legitimate editors. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: The "{{one source}}" tag was accurate, and not vandalism. Tags shouldn't be taken offensively or be viewed as bad, they're meant to help improve the encyclopedia. It's always advisable to remain civil during discussions, to encourage collaboration.—Godsy(TALKCONT)07:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, the one source tag is often misused and it was misused here. I quote from the template documentation: "Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy. Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality." (my emphasis) At no stage was any question raised about verifiability or neutrality, and a single source is not automatically a problem. Perhaps TDW got a little cranky, but this kind of thing happens all the time and is infuriating for content creators. I hope this whole thing dies down now because no good can come of furthering this too much, but I wanted it on the record that the use of the one-source tag here was not appropriate. Frickeg (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that last edit was WP:POINTY and pretty damn uncivil, actually. It took me less than five seconds to address, but it was a deliberate attempt to provoke (or at the very least appears that way). I earnestly suggest that everyone move on to stuff that actually matters. Frickeg (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Frickeg:@Godsy:@The Drover's Wife: I think we can all agree that this situation is becoming slightly ridiculous on all sides of the argument. Godsy, I have to say, I do personally feel that saying it needed to be split into sections - whilst I completely believe that you did so in good faith - was a tad unnecessary. However, I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to provoke, Frickeg should WP:AGF. Having said this, Godsy is completely correct in saying that the issues here do not at all justify edit warring or breaches of civility (on this talk page or any other) on the part of The Drover's Wife. To summarise, I think everyone (including me) needs to take a long, hard look at their actions, and then move forward as Frickeg said, having learnt from this experience. I have mentioned before that should The Drover's Wife exercise harassing practices directed at me again, I will be reporting her to the administrator's incident board, and that is my final comment on the matter. I have also tagged this article as an Australian politician stub, I think that should probably suffice. | Naypta✉opened his mouth at08:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in continuing this conversation further, but I think it's ridiculous that despite having an explicitly female username Naypta just called me a dude. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
